I don't really understand what tumblr is yet

Question?   3DSFC 2938-7396-3944 (AC:NL, EOIV, ML:DT, LoZ:LBW, FE:A, PKMNY, MK7,BD:WTFF)



    The overwhelming injustice of John Crawford’s murder. 

    (via weeaboo-chan)

    — 3 days ago with 8324 notes


    #heforshe is so great love the continuation of making women’s issues about men love how nothing can exist unless it’s through men love it

    while i get the feeling behind this. men are the ones who have to change, not mentioning men obfuscates the relationship and its horrific facets thats are used to correct and shape women. men are the perpetrators.

    (via coronaryartery)

    — 4 days ago with 7690 notes


    HAPPENING NOW (9.26.14): And in an instance, mayhem. The police attacked protesters without warning or clear provocation, mind you, WHILE the police chief was out chatting/marching with them. More to come tonight. Stay woke. #farfromover (PT I) (PT II)

    So while the Chief was PR stuntin, one of his officers decided to charge through the crowd and INCITE A MELEE. I repeat, the officers got physical with protesters, and in the ensuing mayhem, used it as an excuse to whoop on some of the protesters. THERE IS VIDEO! CNN is already misreporting it as an attack on the chief. Do not let them spread that lie. These pigs have no regard, respect, or consideration for the protesters, peaceful or otherwise. #staywoke #farfromover


    (via weeaboo-chan)

    — 4 days ago with 19715 notes



    Chris Pratt is handling his SNL-hosting responsibilities well… for the most part.

    *sweat drops* *sweat drops*

    Don’t *sweat* it - you’ll be a superstar!

    — 4 days ago with 4219 notes


    Ms. Shawna Mills, aka LazyMills has been on my radar for some time. Hailing from my hometown of NYC, the soft spoken 2D animator/concept designer’s work does a lot of the talking with it’s loud, boisterous and “IDGAF” treatment to shape laws and rules. She’s one of my favorite people working and she’s one of the few ladies of color in animation who has their own voice. 

    Source:  Lazymills.com

    (via paul4allseasons)

    — 4 days ago with 9115 notes


    HAPPENING NOW (9.24.14): The situation in Ferguson is escalating quickly. Protests continue, following this morning’s burning of a Mike Brown memorial, and another frustrating Ferguson City Council meeting.Looks like the same “antagonize over de-escalate” tactics are back online. Prayers to all those out in the street of Ferguson right now fighting for their right to exist. #staywoke #farfromover (PT IPT IIPT III)  

    Bringing back the dogs, choppers, charging the crowd, attempting to bottleneck protesters into an area, AND live shots possible fired into the crowd… what the ever-living fuck is Ferguson PD trying to do?! We’re a month and a half into this saga, and they still don’t know how to de-escalate a situation. Pray y’all. That might be all we got right now.

    — 4 days ago with 121914 notes
    "So, I ask to the women who are still not sure about rape culture, patriarchy, or male supremacy, if you see the problem behind a culture in which “no” is punishable, but where failure to say “no” makes any violation of your personhood your own fault. When you sit back for a moment and think to yourself that surely you can say no to men, and that I am blowing things way out of proportion, then at least do this test within your own life: Start saying No more often when No is what you really want to say. Establish firm boundaries with men and do not let up. See if the male you are saying no to immediately stops and respects your boundary, or if his automatic response, reflexive—as though he’s been learning how to do this since he was a boy, as though he sees no other response more logical than this—is to attempt to do what you have just asked him not to do to you. Notice how you feel when telling a man “no” as well. Do you feel butterflies in your stomach? Do you feel guilty (denying him his right of access to you)? Do you feel mean? Do you feel unsure at all as to whether or not you have the right to tell him no? It is very easy to feel that men are not so bad when you are still making sure to give them what they want."
    — 6 days ago with 7619 notes




    Katt Williams on Dave Chappelle: “But Dave Chappelle was decapitated in front of us. And until we deal that. Until we deal with the fact that a devout Muslim was accused of being a crackhead. And until we establish the fact that they said he went to Africa to smoke cocaine when we know they don’t have running water and food over there. When they don’t have paved roads over there. You saying he flew past Chicago and Miami and LA and New York and Detroit, you saying he went past Cleveland and Fort Pierce, Florida, and he went past Okeechobee and Oakland, you saying he went all the way to another country where they not eating? You talking about somebody who has a wife and children, five children, and lives on a farm, he doesn’t live here in Hollywood. You saying you convince people that person was an insane crackhead? And he hasn’t been on movies and TV for eight years is that correct? Ok then don’t tell me about what you wanna tell me, I just watched you decapitate him in front of me… Then when he made 500 million dollars, even though his contract said he was supposed to get half of it, they said he made too much for the contract to be valid, so we’ll offer you 10% of what you made. You mean he made 500 million and they offered him 50? Yes. And he said, “what do you think my fans are gonna say? When they find out you offered me 10% of what I made you.” And they said, “your fans will believe that you’re a crazy crackhead by the time you get home. And my nigga got on a flight in LA and by the time he got to Ohio it was so. And eight years later he hasn’t been in a movie or television and is just now trying to do his real comeback in Radio City Music Hall. It’s bees like that sometimes.”

    White supremacy is meticulous, and people think shit be happening by coincidence. This has pissed me d fuck off

    The pain that Black comedians/comediennes go through. 

    yo this shit was intense

    (Source: kanyeuniversecity, via averyterrible)

    — 6 days ago with 35071 notes


    [flicks pipe ash from tweed jacket] hmph, yes. indeed. a compelling interpretation of the text. but what is the significance of the name “hamlet”? it just means “small ham”

    — 1 week ago with 38 notes

    Batman Sucks: A conversation

    1:I caught the premier of Gotham last night.
    someone needs to erase frank miller from history
    im tired of the dark knight
    1:Frank Miller has nothing to do with the show.
    Anyhoo, it's pretty banal so far.
    2:yeah and allan moore had nothing to do with the watchman movie
    1:That's an insane comparison.
    2:lol well im just saying. frank miller created the dark knight imp
    1:Even so, he did really good work before the Sin City movie turned him into a bizarre parody of himself.
    1:Year One motherfucker.
    2:lol i thought you were referencing the movie
    i was like
    frank miller wrote that? well that changes everything
    but alas
    i dont care about his boring noir superhero crap
    1:Minus his hooker fascination, obviously, because that shit had literally nothing to do with the plot.
    And Year One was a Batman arc, dingus. XD
    2:yeah i know:P
    pales in comparison to the movie Year One
    1:Uh, hardly.
    1:It was a funny movie, yea.
    2:greatest least successful allegory
    1:But Batman going up against regular old gangsters is always the best Batman.
    2:meh im over batman
    millionaire superheroes cannot be sympathetic to me
    1:Eh, I don't think that you're supposed to sympathize with him. He's the Hercule Poirot of comics.
    i mean. i dunno. that doesn't really work when you make him a superhero
    1:All his best stories are fair-play mysteries.
    2:yeah but you can have a great fairplay mystery without having an annoying nonsensical benevolent millionaire main character
    1:You can, but that character is a connecting thread.
    Once again, similar to Poirot.
    2:yeah.but that is true regardless of the character
    that is the entire nature of comics
    1:Wait, what?
    How is that the entire nature of comics?
    The point of making your character a detached rich person is to string together otherwise unrelated mysteries into a cohesive narrative.
    2:the nature of comics is that the character is the throughline.
    1:Which is exactly why characters like Poirot, Mrs Marple, and to a lesser degree Holmes (who was not technically wealthy, but had powerful benefactors) work so well.
    2:naw man. having a good character is what makes those work well. not having a character at all
    1:The wealth or connections allow you to hand wave logistics, and the detachment allows you to treat each story as a jumping-on point for new readers, because they are less likely to dwell on older continuity that way.
    2:yeah i understand the ingredients
    1:There's a reason why 'aloof and asocial' are pretty much the only defining features of every major mystery series protagonist.
    2:well yeah. bt that doesn't mean every combination of those qualities produces an effective leading character
    1:They're all the same, dude.
    2:naw man
    they are similar
    1:Yea, to an alarming degree.
    2:nuance is everything
    1:You can take any one of their mysteries, give it to one of the other protagonists, and end up with the exact same story with slightly different dialogue.
    In fact, Christie did exactly that with Poirot. Like, all the time.
    She would re-write completed stories to include the character at her editor's behest.
    2:yeah i mean that can all be true and batman is a lame character
    1:Then re-write him out of the stage versions.
    And the story was almost totally the same.
    2:i mean. miller is no christie. and its not just about fair play, they may be the thrust of the story, but again, nuance is everything
    1:And I think you're just burned out on an otherwise fine character due to what they call 'Wolverine publicity'. Batman is just 'guy solving crime with spy gadgets'. He isn't even characterized consistently between mediums.
    2:thats part of my issue
    i dont care about his stories
    and the character is dumb
    i mean his detective stories use his millionaire-ness to handwave constantly that don't make sense
    i mean. poirot's wealth was used logically
    to handwave
    where batmans wealth is used to handwave things that CANNOT make sense
    1:Like what?
    2:tHe second batman movie come to mind immediately
    he's rich so therefore he knows how to do things
    is the main issue
    i mean the dark knight rises was hilariously bad
    is rises the second one?
    the second one
    so dumb
    And that's never been his thing. He doesn't know stuff because money.
    2:no he knows stuff because he trains and is a superhero adaptability.
    these are things he has/is able to do because he is rich
    the second one is the really bad movie
    so dark knight...? what what's the second one?
    i mean the whole boat thing
    not to mention the first one is retarded
    only saving grace is its villains
    1:Dark Knight was the second. Dark Knight Rises was the third.
    thought the second one had a sub
    oh well
    same shit as transformers. only difference is, batman isn't as transparently stupid as transformers
    movie wise i mean
    1:Batman knows what he knows because he spent his adolescence training. The exact field of training varies from origin story to origin story.
    2:right. because of his wealth
    1:Dude, no.
    He doesn't have his wealth while training because he ran away.
    just because his wealth wasn't the direct means of his transportation doesnt mean its unrelated
    1:He gets to wherever it is he goes to, and then either lives as an urchin or gets taken in by a mentor.
    2:right and the reason he gains powers from this is because he is actually wealthy
    1:I don't follow.
    Yes, he's technically wealthy, but spends over a decade without access to said wealth.
    2:his wealth establishes his character as one thing. which sheds to become to a more powerful person. which is a pretty gross message.
    1:Sorry, what? I can't parse that.
    2:regardless of batmans adolescent origins. he always has the same true beginning. a wealthy orphan
    2:he sheds this wealth to go training. but these two things are not actually related
    1:Not intrinsically. Although he most often goes some place that encourages an unfettered or even ascetic lifestyle.
    2:so he runs away. typically great distances. his wealth, despite him having relinquished it, is still the caveat that explains his teenage self travelling to different masters.
    1:So you might say that his training may have included philosophies that preclude an attachment to wealth.
    2:lol you might have trouble backing up that argument lol
    1:No, his wealth isn't how he gets around to different masters. His wealth gets him out of the country. From there he is on his own.
    2:same thing
    1:Also, he rarely does a globe travelling thing. Most versions, he studies under one mentor, becomes the best at the one thing, and goes back.
    2:yeah far distance. not distances
    batmans growth is an illusion that justifies his bloodlust
    1:By then, he views his wealth as a tool to facilitate vigilantism, and relies on confidants to supply him with whatever he wasn't trained in.
    2:all of his 'origin' is about justifying his violence as a tool to fight violence.
    and he is able to use violence because of his wealth
    his training, in story is attempted to be separated from his wealth.
    1:Eh, only Millar's Batman was characterized by 'bloodlust'.
    2:but it doesn't work that way. isn't magically no longer wealthy because his training under some weird master
    which is what my problem is
    1:Yea, but that was a fresh take on the character once-upon-a-time.
    2:fresh =/= better
    1:It was certainly better than the post-66' series Batman from the 70s. XD
    2:meh debateable
    just as one note. at least it had some value in it in the form of humour
    and julie newmar
    1:No, that was the 66' series era Batman. The Batman that existed between the end of that show and DKR was a clusterfuck of terrible attempts to boost the comic's sales back up to what it was when the show was out.
    well that sounds actually worse than millars but. that doesn't push millar into being a good book for anything but art
    i mean
    id rather have batman aquasuit and a batmobile that splits apart instead of christian bale growling retarded one liners to himself.
    1:Millar actually took a very realistic take on the character (besides the obscene levels of punishment everyone can take in fights). It was the post-Millar's imitators who made things ridiculous.
    2:well i disagree
    i mean
    it is more 'realistic' to the personality choices. frank has fairly consistent characterization
    still absolutely ridiculous
    and obv the imitators are worse
    they are imitating shit.
    that might actually make them better than millar
    i mean thats a joke. millar tries to have some sort of introspection on the absurdity of batman
    but that doesn't make batman no longer absurd
    1:He didn't try to make him not absurd.
    2:i know.
    thats the problem
    instead of fixing the absurdity
    he just monologues about being absurd
    1:He tried to justify the absurdity by portraying Bruce Wayne as seriously mentally ill.
    2:Thats an utter copout
    1:That's an absurd statement.
    2:Bat man has always been mentally ill saying it outlook doesn't somehow give it more value
    Out loud*
    1:It's no more a cop-out than any other deconstruction of absurd genre conventions.
    No, he absolutely has not.
    2:Lol. Well not I if you leave an understanding of mental illness from sitcoms and movies
    Leave =have
    1:Only Millar's and Morrison's depictions of Batman include any sort of actual mental illness.
    2:I would describe the fundamental aspects of batman as being inarguable markers of mental illness
    I would also stipulate that mental illness is a continuum on which all of humanity falls. And what is socially considered an illness is that which interferes with normal productive behaviour
    See watchmen
    1:I mean only Millar and Morrison's Batman are definitively diagnosable.
    2:Including a reference to mental illness is not the litmus test for being mentally ill
    All batman are diagnosable
    1:Not really.
    2:Which is especially true if you use time an appropriate dsms
    Yes really. Millar batman is only special in the sense that people who use crazy to describe mental illness are able to diagnose him
    Are able to diagnose him
    2:yeah. i have a hard time believing anyone with a DSM in hand would have difficulty diagnosing any iteration of batman
    1:Millar's Batman has whatever the fuck they used to call 'sociopathy'. His version of the character is very consistently portrayed as such.
    2:sociopath is not a psychological diagnosis
    it doesn't exist in psychology. it is a legal diagnosis
    at any rate. thats worse
    because that is evidence that millar really doesn't understand mental illness.
    which makes him an even worse candidate for the explicit portrayal of a mentally ill batman
    1:Yea, but there 'a a specific personality disorder that is colloquially referred to as sociopathy in television and movies.
    1:That's the one that Miller's depiction has.
    reread that sentence
    following a legal guidebook to characterise your main character as a specific type of legal classification
    1:What the fuck are you even saying?
    2:is not only offensive to the human being at its basis(being that mental illness is a human continuum that no human isn't on). but also lazy
    the word sociopath in movies doesnt refer to a separate but equally formal ideal of human personality
    it is used because of media using it in its an official form without explanation
    explicitly portraying 'mental illness' is the laziest thing i can imagine
    in terms of writing a character
    not to mention
    that legal sociopathic people don't follow some schematic
    it works comparing tendencies
    when a tendency becomes counter-productive to survival of yourself or others.
    sticking to some made up idea of a model of personality
    is lazy, stupid, dishonest and ineffective
    1:What the fuck does the legal definition of sociopath have to do with anything? Like I said multiple times, it's supposed to be whatever that personality disorder everyone refers to as sociopathy.
    but my point is there is no such thing
    there is no other sociopath
    its an epithet used on characters who do not have ANY empathy.
    which is not even how legal sociopathy works(which is where the word comes from, and what movies are referring to)
    1:Yes, there absolutely is. There is a real personality disorder that people refer to erroneously as sociopathy *all the time*.
    2:that does not mean that that personality is real. in fact if you follow the etymology of the word and look at the applications that fit your definition you will find there is no consistency besides a total lack of empathy. which again, is not a real thing
    if anything the 'real' disorder you refer to is what people call others who appear to not respect their needs and wants and self
    which again.
    is not an actual thing
    it is an assessment of another that is based absolutely on your own interactions with the person
    or your observations of their interactions
    which i shouldn't have to say, is not the same thing as a person's thoughts or psychology.
    sociopath doesn't mean that person isn't empathic (which is the media implication of the term)
    it means, that person isn't empathic to me.
    or, i don't feel empathy from that person
    which objectively could be seen as a personal disorder, and not something wrong with the assessed
    1:Dude, can you voice chat?
    2:anyway my point is you can't say miller's batman is mentally ill, and say this is so because he is a sociopath
    1:I didn't.
    2:you say he is mentally ill
    that his mental illness is 'media' sociopathy
    1:I said he had whatever the fuck personality disorder is that people always refer to as sociopathy.
    I can't for the life of me remember what it's actual name is.
    2:right and i'm trying to explain to you, that there isn't a personality disorder there
    you can't base a diagnosis on how you feel you are being treated
    diagnosis of mental illness is a joke/mess in real life medicine
    there is barely consistency when its important.
    1:So you are saying that whatever that personality disorder is doesn't actually exist?
    2:no im saying, that sociopathy in media doesn't refer to a personality disorder
    it refers to a similar characterization.
    that is neither indicative or not of any mental illness
    its a shortcut to make you feel a certain way about a character without actually justifying that feeling.
    any consistency among those characterized as sociopaths is coincidence
    because, in a movie, when they call a character a sociopath
    they aren't referring to a real person.
    so they cannot be referring to a real personality disorder
    2:now, you'll find in non0fiction the term is used
    an invented character's personality quirks cannot be said to represent a real personality
    only an approximation of interactions with a personality
    1:Dude, actual sociopathy is not what I'm talking about.
    2:yes i know
    but you can't just ignore it
    1:Ignore what?
    2:since the media use of the term COMES from the legal term
    that sociopathy is a word with a meaning outside of fiction
    i get that you are not referring to legal sociopathy
    but fiction sociopathy does not refer to anything
    1:I'm not. That's specifically why I mentioned that it wasn't sociopathy, but rather whatever that personality disorder that is always labeled sociopathy.
    2:it is used inconsistently and often incompatibly
    and i'm saying
    that the personality disorder labelled as sociopathy is not a personality disorder.
    because.. its not a personality disorder. the words comes from a specific legal meaning. used in media enough until the technical term is irrelevant to its use.
    it becomes a term used to describe a person without any knowledge of their psyche or motivations
    the term, in media, is used on people. not who have a different personality disorder, but whose personality clashes in an unfavourable way with otherwise important characters. or in order to establish an important character as an antihero
    when used in media
    it doesn't refer to a group of people with a specific personality
    so saying hes the mentally ill batman because he has not-sociopathy is a juvenile assessment
    1:I don't understand what the fuck you're saying. What does the term sociopath have to do with anything beside the fact that it is often mistakenly applied to the thing I'm thinking of?
    2:copy and replace the word sociopath with THING and the argument still makes sense from my perspective
    1:so i am confused
    whether you call the traits called sociopathic, sociopathic or not is irrelevant
    2:what im saying is that mysterious disorder that is called sociopathy in movies, is not a disorder
    there is no commonality
    1:And he's not 'the mentally ill Batman'. He's the Batman portrayed as having that specific personality disorder.
    2:the specific personality disorder that people in movies call sociopathy but isn't sociopathy?
    that doesnt make sense
    2:because the personality disorder that people in movies call sociopathy isn't a personality disorder
    people in movies are called sociopaths-while-being-something-that-isn't-a-sociopath so frequently and with such little consistency that is not even possible to draw a model based on empirical study of these characters
    so to say he has that disorder
    is nonsensical
    2:because movie sociopaths are alternately bipolar, depressed, suicidal, homicidal, schizophrenic
    which ADT?
    1:The disorder I'm thinking of is APD
    2:well now we are back at the beginning
    apd is not what is characterized in batman. it is simply the closest approximation for his group of traits, that is listed in the DSM
    1:Yea, fair enough.
    2:a good rule of thumb is if a fictional character says its a 'disorder' or 'dysfunction' or 'disease' ignore it.
    1:I think that's a silly distinction to make, but whatever.
    2:well, i think its importance is paramount considering the state of mental medicine in the world
    1:Nobody in universe as far as I know actually says it, but Miller's Batman is very clearly portrayed as such.
    2:yeah. i maintain that is absurdly lazy writing.
    following the DSM in order to portray a character with a 'mental illness' should mean you aren't allowed to publish things anymore
    i mean thats like all the words in call of duty being arabic
    when they speak urdu in afghanistan
    though maybe thats a little too harsh.
    1:For portraying a protagonist afflicted with mental disorders ?
    2:i object to that question
    mental disorder is a continuum on which all of humanity falls.
    if you want to write mental disorder. and you have to look at the dsm to do it. simply, don't
    or rather
    and you have to follow the dsm
    dsm is actually a great study guide for writing characters because it will help you understand just how much possibility there is human psychology.
    1:How else would you portray a disorder you don't have yourself?
    2:but its also bad because it makes you think that a given collection of traits equates to a problem greater than the sum of its parts, when mental disorder is the opposite of that
    1:No. That's stupid.
    2:if you can't imagine how one of your tendencies can be exaggerated into becoming counterproductive and bad for your survival.
    hell quit writing at that point
    or at least, don't expect me to read or respect your work
    1:That's silly. Just because you don't have personal experience with something doesn't mean you shouldn't write about it.
    2:but that is the flaw
    1:That's exactly why writers do research.
    2:thinking you don't have experience with mental illness
    mental illness is a continuum on which all of humanity falls
    what some people call disorder
    2:is a universal trait in different measure
    1:What does that have to do with anything.
    2:it has everything to do with writing 'mentally ill' characters
    if you don't understand that.
    that you don't understand mental illness enough to be writing about it
    or rather
    you don't understand mental illness enough to use it as characterization
    1:Yea, everyone has some sort of experience with mental illness, but that doesn't mean you have experience with the specific set of symptoms you wish to portray.
    2:if you already know the symptoms you want to portray then looking at the dsm isn't going to help you at all
    1:It absolutely does.
    2:the dsm is about matching symptoms to a diagnosis
    if you already know the symptoms what do you need to know what the dsm calls that collection of symptoms?
    why do you need to know..
    there aren't a lot of good reasons to use the dsm as a reference for character writing if you already know the symptoms you want to portray
    1:You may not know *every* symptom, perhaps just the more common or spectacular ones. You may also want to know the symptoms of common comorbid disorders.
    2:you can learn, other common symptoms that show up. and you can learn what doctors call a given collection of symptoms. thats it
    if you know the symptoms.
    the dsm does not have information of value
    if you don't know the symptoms. you are looking at the dsm to characterize a character with a specific disorder which almost any psychologist will tell you is a fools errand
    1:Yea, and?
    2:and you end up with a gross caricature like miller's batman
    1:I don't see what that has to do with anything.
    2:which. albeit, is unfortunately on the better end of the spectrum of mental illness writing
    but thats a comment on the state of comic writing. not the skill of millar
    defining a character through textbook traits of a personality disorder, won't make an accurate portrayal of a person with a personality disorder. by virtue of the DSM being the resource you is important, you betray your lack of understanding about its contents
    -is important
    the resource you use*
    1:Millar's Batman was a consistent and nuanced character. He was hardly a 'gross caricature' until All-Star Batman and Robin.
    2:yeah i know
    thats why miller's batman, is unfortunately, on the better end of the spectrum
    its better than pretty much any other tripe of similar nature from the big two comics companies./
    despite still being tripe from the big two comics companies
    1:That's an unfair assessment. The big two may be very firmly low-brow, but 'tripe' is beyond harsh.
    2:pulpy lowbrow shit is what they SHOULD be doing
    putting another violence-fetishizing white male asshole in charge of a want-it-to-be-highbrow arc is the problem
    1:That's really not a huge issue in modern comics, dude. That accurately describes the stuff we grew up with, but excessive violence doesn't really fly any more.
    2:replace violence with nerd.
    statement still true
    1:That's just... No dude. The industry has always catered to nerds.
    2:it is a major problem that this is still the case
    because it doesn't cater to nerds
    it caters to male outcasts.
    which is not synonymous with nerd anymore
    1:Year, there's definitely a problem with hypermasculinity.
    2:and even if it were, would still be a stupid thing to be doing
    1:But there have also been huge strides to combat this thanks to people like Gail Simmone and the late Dwayne McDuffie.
    2:there have been people since the 30s who have been trying to take these strides. comics industry doesn't kudos for continuing to treat them the same way while now acknowledging they exist.
    for every gail simmone there are 20 rob liefeld's who worked for over a decade.\
    then again, seeing leifeld talk has warmed me on him lol hes pretty self-deprecating and aware that he can't draw
    for gail simmone there are 1000 frank miller's making personal jackoff copies of their own material
    1:I'm not going to say that they had it easy or anything, but you're a fool if you don't realize that things are so much better now than they were in the 30s.
    2:of course they are
    that doesn't mean they are good now though
    for a hyperbolic analogy. WWII wouldn't have ended if hitler had started imprisoning jews only, instead of imprisoning and killing them
    of course its better.
    you can see a womans name on a comic
    of course its still god awful though
    because that woman was just rich and white enough to be noticed.
    1:No, but things have come a long way. The fact is that now the grognards are getting called out on their shit tells me that we are nearing a tipping point. Especially now that those grognards are trying to fight back. They feel threatened now, whereas they never did before.
    the grognards have always been called out on their shit
    and they've always fought back against
    because feeling threatened is the only feeling they can embrace.
    the idea that the backlash is new is the best evidence for how little progress there has been.
    its great that some minor things have gotten marginally better.
    but talking about what's been done is a waste of time, when there is so much work still to do
    1:The difference is that the people calling out the idiots have exposure for their voice now. I don't doubt that people have always voiced concern over Wonder Woman covers that show gratuitous tits and ass or whatever. But now those voices are seen and heard by people other than the editor who decides which can Mail gets printed.
    2:yeah but those voices are heard to the chagrin of comic execs and grognards
    they are only audible because of the internet.
    where those in charge are absolved of responsibility by simply allowing those people to talk.
    which is itself a goddamn farce
    okay i think i'm reaching a critical mass of cynicism
    i gotta go smoke a joint
    theres gonna be an event horizon in my mind where all the positivity goes and is never seen again lol
    you can try to call me but if i cant play my game while i smoke i'm hanging up lol
    1:Comic execs are beginning to come around, though. There is a significant increase in depictions of women and people of colour in mainstream comics. And yea, a lot of it is exploitation genre stuff, but even that is coming around now.
    — 1 week ago
    #comics  #batman  #deconstruction  #feminism  #women in comics  #frank miller  #writing  #criticism  #debate  #grognards 


    Two scientists walk into a bar:

    "I’ll have an H2O."

    "I’ll have an H2O, too."

    The bartender gives them both water because he is able to distinguish the boundary tones that dictate the grammatical function of homonyms in coda position as well as pragmatic context.

    — 1 week ago with 36163 notes


    HAPPENING NOW (9.24.14): What we know so far about the situation tonight in Ferguson. NO clear signs of looting, just heresay from a couple of folks who say they saw folks taking merch. NO SHOT FIRED at the scene (reporter says he heard what could have been shots in the distance, away from where protesters are). No violent clashes as of yet between protesters and police, though tensions are high. The timing on all this… it’s just fucking suspicious. #staywoke #farfromover

    (via weeaboo-chan)

    — 1 week ago with 8300 notes